The CC Community

[Funkyterrance]

How can democracy predict goodness when the voters are uninformed/rationally ignorant and face perverse incentives (externalized costs)?

Again, you are envisioning a scenario where the voters are uninformed but this does not have to be so, it just happens to be in some instances. Just give voters more information and "voila!", your gauge of goodness would proportionately get more accurate. Once the votes were counted you could reasonably say that you knew at least what most people would consider the best option and therefore what is most likely has the most "goodness" overall.
It seems like you are pointing at democracy like a car that's out of gas and has four flats and saying "see, cars are a shitty form of transportation!".

[BigBallinStalin]

How can democracy predict goodness when the voters are uninformed/rationally ignorant and face perverse incentives (externalized costs)?

Again, you are envisioning a scenario where the voters are uninformed but this does not have to be so, it just happens to be in some instances. Just give voters more information and "voila!", your gauge of goodness would proportionately get more accurate. Once the votes were counted you could reasonably say that you knew at least what most people would consider the best option and therefore what is most likely has the most "goodness" overall.
It seems like you are pointing at democracy like a car that's out of gas and has four flats and saying "see, cars are a shitty form of transportation!".

Even if you assume that voters have perfect information and perfect incentives, it still doesn't follow that the outcomes would be perfect, or the utilitarian outcome.

[Funkyterrance]

Even if you assume that voters have perfect information and perfect incentives, it still doesn't follow that the outcomes would be perfect, or the utilitarian outcome.

No but I thought we agreed that was impossible and to settle for the next best thing to a completely utilitarian outcome or at least the best gauge for a prediction? Are you multitasking or something?
I realize I am making it harder to snake around the subject but I'm looking to more forward here.

[BigBallinStalin]

Even if you assume that voters have perfect information and perfect incentives, it still doesn't follow that the outcomes would be perfect, or the utilitarian outcome.

No but I thought we agreed that was impossible and to settle for the next best thing to a completely utilitarian outcome or at least the best gauge for a prediction? Are you multitasking or something?
I realize I am making it harder to snake around the subject but I'm looking to more forward here.

Me too, so let's review a little. (tbh, I've been wanting to avoid this discussion, but I'll say what I'll say, and see what happens).

"Like I mentioned above, democracy is the next best thing since we cannot conceivably at this point in time measure the amount of goodness/badness in a system, decision, etc.. "

No, cuz markets.


Then,
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=179401&start=120#p3926947

How can democracy predict goodness when the voters are uninformed/rationally ignorant and face perverse incentives (externalized costs)?

Again, you are envisioning a scenario where the voters are uninformed but this does not have to be so, it just happens to be in some instances. Just give voters more information and "voila!", your gauge of goodness would proportionately get more accurate. Once the votes were counted you could reasonably say that you knew at least what most people would consider the best option and therefore what is most likely has the most "goodness" overall.
It seems like you are pointing at democracy like a car that's out of gas and has four flats and saying "see, cars are a shitty form of transportation!".

You can't assume the fundamental problems away. Voters can't be made informed by simply dumping information into them. They have to have the incentive to become more informed, but the benefits fail to offset the costs. In order to become an informed voter, one would have to understand all the major social sciences and have real life experience of the political. So, give or take 8 years of training, and they'll be informed?

The incentives don't line up, and besides, the costs of public policy is dispersed onto the many, while the benefits are concentrated to certain groups (e.g. interest groups). We're talking about a system which has perverse incentives and distorted rules of the game that involve zero-sum exchanges. In no way is this a 2nd best gauge for determining/reflecting happiness--as demanded by utilitarianism.



Here's more on markets v. democratic institutions

Democracy isn't the only realistic gauge for reflecting happiness (from the utilitarian perspective). If the majority could vote on extracting the wealth of the few, then they'd be happy in the short-run, until of course the rich leave, production drops, and their economy becomes shit (thus no happiness) (see: Greece, Spain, etc., or ask all the young unemployed in the Eurozone). Making decisions in which the costs are externalized cannot accurately reflect the value of one's happiness.

The best institution for maximizing happiness in general for more people increasingly over time is the market--not democracy.

But isn't what is sought is a method to predict the goodness/badness of a situation, not find out after the fact? Once the market is determined it's usually a moot point. In reality as we know it we rarely have time to wait for the "market" to settle or trend before we make a decision. Also, your Eurozone example assumes an uninformed voting population but that's not the ideal model. Ideally the participants are well informed. I think if we are going to discuss the benefits of each model we should be fair and non-biased in the examples. I realize you are using the example to prove that in at least some scenarios democracy is a bad gauge of utility but no system is perfect and gets the best prediction 100% of the time.
Democracy gives us the closest gauge we have to making a utilitarian decision before the fact with the added benefit of prompt results and the involvement of everyone affected(how much happiness does this aspect give to both sides?).
At any rate, market research only shows us the trends of those who participate in it so it isn't really an accurate collective happiness/unhappiness meter. I'll even submit to your debatable statement that increased money=increased happiness but completely destitute people don't hardly affect the market and they certainly have their share of unhappiness.

Markets aren't 'determined'. They're constantly in flux with consumer preferences if the exchanges are voluntary and perceived as mutually beneficial. If they aren't, then on the margin people opt for less or choose other producers. Prices are the feedback mechanism for rational decision making, and profit and loss provide the incentives which tend to align self-interests with general interest. With majority rule, you don't get any of this, and you definitely don't get voluntary exchanges that reflect people's cost and benefits. It's a vote--an expressed preference for a political package which may or may not be delivered, but that doesn't matter because rhetoric matters.

The exchanges are involuntary (e.g. taxes), so the majority votes on how to spend other people's money. Such decisions don't reflect the costs of their own consequences from their votes or from their preferences (the costs are externalized; they're partially removed from your own benefit-cost analysis).


It's like those silly surveys which declare that people want more Medicare. The question is:

"Should Americans have more Medicare?" (or, the sugar-coated version:)
"Should the government provide necessary services for the elderly?"

Many say yes, but what's missing? Oh, right, the money.

"Should the government provide Medicare by taking 5% of your income?" (then repeat for each main package of the government).

Obviously, people will not be as favorable to this survey when the costs of their decisions are actually reflected (i.e. the costs are internalized).

And that's just stated preferences from voting. The consequences of public policy are dispersed, so that problem is unavoidable. It goes on and on, but there's no way that democracy is a 2nd best gauge for reflecting happiness for the many.

[Funkyterrance]

Hmm, I'm starting to think that we are each referring to democracy as a different animal. I am referring to a democracy only so much in a system in that a majority rules, not the form of government.
I'm also starting to wonder if the question really is one of faith in your fellow man? I feel that someone who is well-informed would not necessarily have to understand all the workings of government, just have all the facts involved in order to make the decision. You mentioned the silly survey example; why not have the voters vote on the clarified version you gave instead of the sugar coated, incomplete one? Basically I'm proposing that the average citizen has enough common sense to take a proposal formed in a non-biased, lucid way and figure out whether or not they would be happiest if said proposal were passed or not.
I also think that corruption should be considered when deciding which method(democracy vs. market) would provide a closer representation of the true utility of a proposal. Its a lot easier to fudge numbers than it is to fudge issues.
P.S- Forgive me for not reading the links atm, it's rather late and I wanted to answer at least something for now since you good-naturedly and painstakingly replied in such a prompt manner.

[BigBallinStalin]

Governance or government, democracy ITT can serve as the political means for either, so my criticism still applies.

Your question about providing the clearer survey is good. The problem is that people have an agenda which can be profitable. Rhetoric is profitable as well, and ideologies (e.g. nationalism/patriotism) cloud people's perception. Having the goal of informing people is great, but if their incentives don't line up with what you offer, then the exchange won't occur.

As far as voter informing and rationality is concerned, the lower the scale of democratic governance over a particular area, the more costs of one's decisions are internalized. So, my arguments deal with factors that are on the margin. Scale up the democratic, and you get more ignorance, more externalized costs, etc.


Basically I'm proposing that the average citizen has enough common sense to take a proposal formed in a non-biased, lucid way and figure out whether or not they would be happiest if said proposal were passed or not.
Unfortunately, they really do not. Most people do not excel in estimating risk, making equivalent comparisons, knowing what's best for others, etc. So, the question is what kind of institution in which they make decisions would lead to the better outcomes? Rule by majority is not where it's at, nor is the political primarily the best institution for this.

[Funkyterrance]

Governance or government, democracy ITT can serve as the political means for either, so my criticism still applies.

Your question about providing the clearer survey is good. The problem is that people have an agenda which can be profitable. Rhetoric is profitable as well, and ideologies (e.g. nationalism/patriotism) cloud people's perception. Having the goal of informing people is great, but if their incentives don't line up with what you offer, then the exchange won't occur.

As far as voter informing and rationality is concerned, the lower the scale of democratic governance over a particular area, the more costs of one's decisions are internalized. So, my arguments deal with factors that are on the margin. Scale up the democratic, and you get more ignorance, more externalized costs, etc.


Basically I'm proposing that the average citizen has enough common sense to take a proposal formed in a non-biased, lucid way and figure out whether or not they would be happiest if said proposal were passed or not.
Unfortunately, they really do not. Most people do not excel in estimating risk, making equivalent comparisons, knowing what's best for others, etc. So, the question is what kind of institution in which they make decisions would lead to the better outcomes? Rule by majority is not where it's at, nor is the political primarily the best institution for this.

Ok, I hate to keep coming back to the same point and I am not being sarcastic, I just think I need to clarify my answer.
To me, estimating risk, knowing what's best for others, etc., does not necessarily need to be assumed or understood by the audience when presenting these proposals. Maybe you are right, your average person may not be capable of answering these types of questions in a non-biased manner. I don't necessarily agree but lets just for the sake of argument consider it a truth. That being said, why couldn't you further simplify the questions by incorporating these more complex thought processes into the proposals? No matter what limitations you may put on the audience of said proposal, it seems there would always be a way to reduce the proposal even further until the issue was completely presented in layman's terms.
Also, if we are still talking about utilitarianism, is there any real evidence that the market represents what makes people happy? The market shows the trends of what individuals strive for but there is not necessarily a correlation between the striving and the happy-ing. It could be argued that the market complicates people's lives to the point where they are actually becoming more un-happy. Maybe I'll try an analogy since it couldn't hurt anything right?

Lets assume that cigarettes had just been invented.
Now in one scenario the long term benefits/hazards of cigarette smoking could be analyzed and the legalization of such a product could be voted on by an informed audience in a direct democracy. We can pretty well guess what the outcome of such a vote would be.
Now in the second scenario we would let tobacco be produced out on the open market. The market would most likely suggest that cigarettes made people very happy because their demand would be very high since they are addictive.
I am suggesting that market analysis could be a total hit or miss approach at figuring what actually made people happy in a utilitarian sense while democracy at least involves some consideration of rational thought, imperfect as the audience may be. If the masses are as ignorant as you say and cannot be trusted to vote for the decision that would gain the most happiness, then why would they be trusted to steer the market in the right direction?